A message to the Star Wars DVD whiners.....
Tavington
now!!!!" -- is what I keep hearing you wankers complaining to everyone else.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of you so-called SW "fans" who are bad mouthing
George Lucas on the verge of libel and slander.
It was out of the good graces of George Lucas that he decided to make The
Phantom Menace for the fans. And although I had my doubts at first before
seeing TPM, I came away in shock at how much better it was than the original
trilogy, if that's possible!
You blokes who are complaining about the new DVD remind me of those cynics
who didn't like the great work done in Star Wars: Special Edition's Greedo
scene.
My favorite scene in the original trilogy is the one where Han Solo is
confronted by Greedo in the cantina. I find it absolutely brilliant the way
Han is able to remain calm as Greedo shoots first and they Han coolly fires
back with a shot of his own, felling him.
What is upsetting to me is that there is a rabid minority of so-called SW
fans who hate the "Greedo shoots first" concept. They prefer the original
low budget scene where Han shoots first. The reason why Han shoots first in
the original is because of studio politics and the available technology at
the time. Since the technology wasn't advanced enough to show Greedo
shooting first, George Lucas had to resort to Han shooting first, which was
a cheap work-around which left Han's character much to be desired.
Han shooting first makes him look like a glorified anti-hero who is nothing
more than a scoundrel. I much prefer the Star Wars: A New Hope (Special
Edition) version of this scene. I am glad that George Lucas corrected this
abomination as it has no place in a classic film series such as Star Wars.
I think that anyone who would prefer the old outdated scene is akin to
someone who hates the brilliant character of Jar Jar Binks.
I have also seen the original "Empire Strikes Back" and I must say that ESB:
SE is far superior. I especially enjoyed the part where Luke is screaming
for his life in SE instead of falling silently in the original. The latter
makes Luke look like a reactionary, right-wing blowhard (strong, silent
type) while the former makes him seem more realistic, not afraid to express
his fear and emotions.
With the changes in the SE, I think they have made Star Wars more
politically correct in order to prepare audiences for George Lucas's
greatest masterpiece thus far, "The Phantom Menace". True Star Wars fans
will agree that TPM far surpasses the original trilogy (ANH, ESB and ROTJ)
although I would agree that AOTC is a close second. However, some cynical
so-called Star Wars fans have attacked this superior piece of filmcraft and
have abandoned the SW franchise. These are traitors to the vision of George
Lucas.
I think that these so-called fans are what I would classify as "Han
Solo/Boba Fett/Darth Maul" fans. These idiots prefer the darker side of
Star Wars instead of its more positive and more politically correct side
(Jar Jar Binks, Ewoks, Greedo shoots first, etc).
Now to get a few things off of my chest. I'm sick and tired of you racist
homophobes who don't like Jar Jar Binks. Star Wars is about political
correctness, diversity and multiculturalism, and if you got a problem with
that: sod off you stupid wanker! You deserve to be branded and imprisoned
because you are a hate speech criminal. Jar Jar haters are no better than
the "forces of darkness" that the visionary Lucas has spoken out against.
I have a question for you Jar Jar haters: if everyone hates Jar Jar so much
then how come TPM is the highest grossing Star Wars movie of all time? Can
millions of true Star Wars fans be wrong?
The truth is Jar Jar Binks and TPM make ANH and ESB look like shit, OK? Jar
Jar is a much more interesting and more inclusive character than that
misogynist
Han Solo. His fans are typical male chauvinist anti-choice pigs who voted
for the right-wing racist cowboy George Bush. If you don't like Jar Jar
then you are not a true Star Wars fan.
We TRUE Star Wars fans will enjoy and relish the changes that George Lucas
has made to the upcoming Star Wars DVD set while you cynical "Han shoots
first" fundamentalist extremists stilll wallow in your hatred. We
appreciate what Lucas has and still does, why can't you?
Jeff
David Spiro
news:Mri3d.454920$M95.434954@pd7tw1no...
> "Waaahhhh!! Wahhhhhh!!! I want my original theatrical Star Wars OT right
> now!!!!" -- is what I keep hearing you wankers complaining to everyone
else.
> Frankly, I am sick and tired of you so-called SW "fans" who are bad
mouthing
> George Lucas on the verge of libel and slander.
>
Hehehehe.............well done, well done.....................;-)
--
David Spiro
Liver Transplant Recipient - 8/1/97
RECYCLE YOURSELF! - BE AN ORGAN DONOR
"I can tell you fancy, I can tell you plain
You give something up for everything you gain
Because every pleasure has an edge of pain
Just pay for your ticket and don't complain"
Bob Dylan - "Sylvio"
Karyudo
<tavi...@zsazsabinks.com> wrote:
>"Waaahhhh!! Wahhhhhh!!! I want my original theatrical Star Wars OT right
>now!!!!" -- is what I keep hearing you wankers complaining to everyone else.
>Frankly, I am sick and tired of you so-called SW "fans" who are bad mouthing
>George Lucas on the verge of libel and slander.
[rest of supremely tongue-in-cheek pseudo-rant deleted]
Oh, boy, you're probably gonna get it! You've crafted a very nice,
subtle, Swift-ian satire (see http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html),
which not everyone is going to understand. Took me a paragraph or two
to see your point, even. But I agree with you wholeheartedly...
Hope you're ready for the onslaught!
Cryofax
- Cryo
"Tavington" <tavi...@zsazsabinks.com> wrote in message
news:Mri3d.454920$M95.434954@pd7tw1no...
James Willmott
Jeff wrote:
> Shutup, fag!
You really missed the point of Tavington's post, didn't you?
.·°^°·.+Nick S+.·°^°·.
-cluster-fuck-.
While I have no problem with some of the changes Lucas made, I think you're
politico bullshit is a bunch of left-wing nonsense.
Go find yerself a cock to smoke, ya fuckin faggot...
Rich Handley
Some people are VERY gullible!
Rich Handley
>"Waaahhhh!! Wahhhhhh!!! I want my original theatrical Star Wars OT right
>now!!!!" -- is what I keep hearing you wankers complaining to everyone else.
>Frankly, I am sick and tired of you so-called SW "fans" who are bad mouthing
>George Lucas on the verge of libel and slander.
Jade?
spamsux
> now!!!!" -- is what I keep hearing you wankers complaining to everyone
else.
> Frankly, I am sick and tired of you so-called SW "fans" who are bad
mouthing
> George Lucas on the verge of libel and slander.
You forgot defamation. ;)
> It was out of the good graces of George Lucas that he decided to make The
> Phantom Menace for the fans. And although I had my doubts at first before
> seeing TPM, I came away in shock at how much better it was than the
original
> trilogy, if that's possible!
I think I like your post. Maybe. I guess. ;)
> You blokes who are complaining about the new DVD remind me of those cynics
> who didn't like the great work done in Star Wars: Special Edition's Greedo
> scene.
>
> My favorite scene in the original trilogy is the one where Han Solo is
> confronted by Greedo in the cantina. I find it absolutely brilliant the
way
> Han is able to remain calm as Greedo shoots first and they Han coolly
fires
> back with a shot of his own, felling him.
>
> What is upsetting to me is that there is a rabid minority of so-called SW
> fans who hate the "Greedo shoots first" concept. They prefer the original
> low budget scene where Han shoots first. The reason why Han shoots
first in
> the original is because of studio politics and the available technology at
> the time. Since the technology wasn't advanced enough to show Greedo
> shooting first, George Lucas had to resort to Han shooting first, which
was
> a cheap work-around which left Han's character much to be desired.
They also cut a disco scene where Greedo slowly dies while dancing under a
mirrored ball. They cut it because it was too gruesome - And Greedo dying
slowly didn't help either.
> Han shooting first makes him look like a glorified anti-hero who is
nothing
> more than a scoundrel. I much prefer the Star Wars: A New Hope (Special
> Edition) version of this scene. I am glad that George Lucas corrected
this
> abomination as it has no place in a classic film series such as Star Wars.
"Scoundrel. I like that."
> I think that anyone who would prefer the old outdated scene is akin to
> someone who hates the brilliant character of Jar Jar Binks.
And his thespian inspired dialogue - "Ikey Ikey Goo". I tingle and
regurgitate in pleasure whenever I hear Jar Jar.
> I'm sick and tired of you racist
> homophobes who don't like Jar Jar Binks.
Too much information ! Anyway, rumours has it that he's actually into
minocks.
C'Pi
<snip>
Tavington, I don't remember you being this long winded before. I only made
it through the first couple paragraphs. You need to either become more
concise or more interesting.
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."
C'Pi
> I can't believe how many people this one got -- nice going, Tavington!
> Some people are VERY gullible!
And since he's done pretty much the same thing several times now, there
really isn't much excuse people should have for not getting it.
C'Pi
> Jeff wrote:
>> Shutup, fag!
>
>
> You really missed the point of Tavington's post, didn't you?
It's not entirely impossible that Tavington is gay.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Clogar
>
[snip]
> They also cut a disco scene where Greedo slowly dies while dancing
> under a mirrored ball. They cut it because it was too gruesome - And
> Greedo dying slowly didn't help either.
Here's what happened: GL originally wanted John Travolta to play
Greedo, but John was under contract with another studio and couldn't
do the scene. Now, the guy at the video store tells me that the Greedo
death scene was actually reshot last year and WILL be on the DVD. Thanks
to the power of digital editing, the flawless addition of Travolta
to the cantina facing off against Han Solo will be available to all.
George Lucas' ultimate vision of this powerful scene will finally be
realized!
James Watson
Absolutely!
And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat an
Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the Federation
starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers while the ISD is
limited to sublight fights with, of all things, simple LASERS... *snort*, I
mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
James Watson (-o-)
"Tavington" <tavi...@zsazsabinks.com> wrote in message
news:Mri3d.454920$M95.434954@pd7tw1no...
Tony
moronism here. I realise Lucas is considered to be a moviemaker in some
degenerate societies, but not among those of us who watch real movies. stick
with the alt.fan groups - they are always nothing but idiots anyhow.
--
"Cory" <transp...@the.usa> wrote in message
news:1095623766.8vJoWhwQvY6D9iJ8JlPTxw@teranews...
> ITA.
Steve Conrad
wrote:
> Absolutely!
>
> And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat an
> Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the Federation
> starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers while the ISD is
> limited to sublight fights with, of all things, simple LASERS... *snort*, I
> mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
>
> James Watson (-o-)
-> ISD's have turbolasers, fighters & bombers and they are rarely without
escort vessels
Steve
--
It is no secret (nor should it come as any surprise) that humankind's most noble impulses often surface during the most tyring of times, that human spirit rises to the challenge when faced with adversity, that human strength is born from human failings...Is it any wonder, then, that the SDF-1 crew became a tighter family after the fortress had been exiled than it had been before?
From the log of Captain (later Admiral) Henry Gloval
Jeff
news:Rdo3d.36452$D7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> You really missed the point of Tavington's post, didn't you?
Shutup, fag!
Celaeno
>
>Absolutely!
>
>And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat an
>Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the Federation
>starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers while the ISD is
>limited to sublight fights with, of all things, simple LASERS... *snort*, I
>mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
Anyone up for a little roast ewok?
*fires up the grill*
Rakelle
--
There was an old man
From Peru, whose limericks
Were really haiku
Clogar
>
> Why don't you argue this out on other, dumber forums - we don't
> encourage moronism here. I realise Lucas is considered to be a
> moviemaker in some degenerate societies, but not among those of us who
> watch real movies. stick with the alt.fan groups - they are always
> nothing but idiots anyhow.
You make me laugh. :)
Smaug69
> now!!!!" -- is what I keep hearing you wankers complaining to everyone else.
Troll.
Smaug69
Hyde
"Celaeno" <cel...@choklit.nospam.org> wrote:
| Did you say something, "James Watson" <dead...@cox.net>?
|
| >
| >Absolutely!
| >
| >And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat an
| >Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the Federation
| >starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers while the ISD
is
| >limited to sublight fights with, of all things, simple LASERS...
*snort*, I
| >mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
|
| Anyone up for a little roast ewok?
|
| *fires up the grill*
|
I'll bring the beer.
--
Hyde
-
=====================================
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most".
~ Ozzy Osbourne ~
David B.
>
> Shutup, fag!
Funny how you always work the word "fag" into almost every single one of
your posts Jeffie. Are you trying to come out of the closet?
David B.
Don't call yourself names Jeffie-boy.
Mike Ward
news:414F66AD...@hotmail.com:
I think it's called displacement.
Solon
We finally agree on something. :-)
--
2004...@ilias.ca
Jeff
news:414F6710...@hotmail.com...
>
> Don't call yourself names Jeffie-boy.
Only FAGS call me Jeffie-boy.
Shutup, fag!
Mike Ward
Lefty Skywalker
> "Rich Handley" you magnificent bastard. I read your post:
>
>>I can't believe how many people this one got -- nice going, Tavington!
>>Some people are VERY gullible!
>
>
> And since he's done pretty much the same thing several times now, there
> really isn't much excuse people should have for not getting it.
At least he hasn't done it lately. I guess that means that I get to
nominate the whole of RASSM as the Soup du Jour.
--
Daniel O. Miller
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the
fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true
science. Whosoever does not know it and can no longer marvel, is as good
as dead, and his eyes are dimmed." - Albert Einstein
WWYD?
(hotmail addy is a red herring; I'm darth dot lefty at gee em ay eye el)
Lefty Skywalker
> In article <8nv3d.48$543.32@lakeread03>, "James Watson" <dead...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely!
>>
>>And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat an
>>Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the Federation
>>starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers while the ISD is
>>limited to sublight fights with, of all things, simple LASERS... *snort*, I
>>mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
>>
>>James Watson (-o-)
>
>
>
> -> ISD's have turbolasers, fighters & bombers and they are rarely without
> escort vessels
There's one in every crowd. Christ, it's like old times around here!
It can't last.
Lefty Skywalker
> "Celaeno" <cel...@choklit.nospam.org> wrote:
>
> | Did you say something, "James Watson" <dead...@cox.net>?
> |
> | >
> | >Absolutely!
> | >
> | >And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat an
> | >Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the Federation
> | >starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers while the ISD
> is
> | >limited to sublight fights with, of all things, simple LASERS...
> *snort*, I
> | >mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
> |
> | Anyone up for a little roast ewok?
> |
> | *fires up the grill*
> |
>
>
> I'll bring the beer.
Anyone for blue-milk mudslides?
Wavy G
Idiot":
>And his thespian inspired dialogue
Hey, come on. Quit with the homophobic stuff already.
David B.
So predictable, fuckface.
Wavy G
Idiot":
>"Tavington" you magnificent bastard. I read your post:
>
><snip>
>
>Tavington, I don't remember you being this long winded before. I only made
>it through the first couple paragraphs. You need to either become more
>concise or more interesting.
The irony is that it becomes interesting after the first couple
paragraphs.
C'Pi
I'm sure he didn't say anything he hadn't said before.
Wavy G
Idiot":
>"Wavy G" you magnificent bastard. I read your post:
>> The following is an excerpt from my upcoming novel "C'Pi is a Big Fat
>> Idiot":
>>
>>> "Tavington" you magnificent bastard. I read your post:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Tavington, I don't remember you being this long winded before. I
>>> only made it through the first couple paragraphs. You need to
>>> either become more concise or more interesting.
>>
>> The irony is that it becomes interesting after the first couple
>> paragraphs.
>
>I'm sure he didn't say anything he hadn't said before.
No, he wasn't repetitive at all. He just takes a long time to get to
the funny part.
Rich Handley
>>And his thespian inspired dialogue
>Hey, come on. Quit with the homophobic stuff already.
LOL!
starboy
S Lee
spell out:
> Steve Conrad wrote:
>
>> In article <8nv3d.48$543.32@lakeread03>, "James Watson"
>> <dead...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Absolutely!
>>>
>>>And BTW, while we are at it, a Galaxy Class starship *could* defeat
>>>an Imperial Class Star Destroyer by the simple fact that the
>>>Federation starship can maneuver and fight at Warp speed with Phasers
>>>while the ISD is limited to sublight fights with, of all things,
>>>simple LASERS... *snort*, I mean, c'mon... Lasers versus phasers?!?
>>>
>>>James Watson (-o-)
>>
>>
>>
>> -> ISD's have turbolasers, fighters & bombers and they are rarely
>> without escort vessels
>
> There's one in every crowd. Christ, it's like old times around here!
> It can't last.
GONK!
--
______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________
| __ "The Internet is where lunatics are
| (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light.
| __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal
Anybody
Good grief!! We knew it was coming.
First they whined because there were no DVDs. Then they whined that
there were DVDs, but weren't the ORIGINAL Original Trilogy. Next they
whined that the DVDs had changes they didn't want and didn't have
changes they did want. Now they're whining because the sound, etc.
isn't "good enough".
Of course, next they'll be whining because they "have to" buy the
Collector's Edition DVD Box Set of all six movies, and then the process
starts again.
:-\
Karyudo
<civi...@beast.kindness> wrote:
>That said, Lucas strikes me as being average rather than bottom of the
>barrel. There are very few movies that can really stand above the
>rest. Chinatown being a good example. Most of the supposedly great
>movies were anything but. I see movies like Rear Window, American
>Beauty and Gone With The Wind getting tons of praise and I laugh.
Interesting. 'Cause I have seen all those movies and liked Chinatown
the least. Big deal: Roman Polanski breaks Jack's nose. The movie ends
in Chinatown. Who cares?
In other words, who are you to be judging what stands above the rest?
I happen to agree Lucas is average, though. Just two movies in the
AFI's Top 100.
John Harkness
<karyudo...@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:51:12 -0500, Domn Tharde
><civi...@beast.kindness> wrote:
>
>>That said, Lucas strikes me as being average rather than bottom of the
>>barrel. There are very few movies that can really stand above the
>>rest. Chinatown being a good example. Most of the supposedly great
>>movies were anything but. I see movies like Rear Window, American
>>Beauty and Gone With The Wind getting tons of praise and I laugh.
>
>Interesting. 'Cause I have seen all those movies and liked Chinatown
>the least. Big deal: Roman Polanski breaks Jack's nose. The movie ends
>in Chinatown. Who cares?
>
No he doesn't, and no, it doesn't.
You haven't seen Chinatown.
John Harkness
Karyudo
Yes, I have. I just didn't like it much, so maybe the details are
hazy. Roman Polanski does in fact hit Jake Gittes' nose with something
(knife? gun?), and for at least part of the rest of the movie Jack has
a patch on it. Maybe it's not broken; it's sure as hell messed up.
Within a minute of the end of the movie, everyone's in Chinatown.
Maybe there's a short cut elsewhere, but basically the big reveal is
in Chinatown, a very, very short time from the end. Oh, and Higgins
(from Magnum P. I.) is in it. Yes, I know it's Jonathan Hillerman.
Maybe you've never seen Rear Window, American Beauty or Gone With The
Wind, because they're all better than Chinatown.
Yes, of course in my opinion. That's my point: you don't have any
better handle on what's great than anyone else.
But the main point was that Lucas is merely average. Agreed.
Key-Bored
"Karyudo" <karyudo...@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
news:6288l0tj474v4r2s8...@4ax.com...
Jack's nose was cut with a switchblade. BTW, how the fuck could you NOT
LOVE Chinatown?
Joe McC
"Key-Bored" <f...@home.com> wrote in message
news:VoW4d.42579$Ot3....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Easy. No explosions & no car chases, ending with the bad guys flipping over
and smashing through a mall window.
deer...@mindspring.com
Karyudo wrote:
>
> Yes, I have. I just didn't like it much, so maybe the details are
> hazy. Roman Polanski does in fact hit Jake Gittes' nose with something
> (knife? gun?), and for at least part of the rest of the movie Jack has
> a patch on it. Maybe it's not broken; it's sure as hell messed up.
> Within a minute of the end of the movie, everyone's in Chinatown.
> Maybe there's a short cut elsewhere, but basically the big reveal is
> in Chinatown, a very, very short time from the end. Oh, and Higgins
> (from Magnum P. I.) is in it. Yes, I know it's Jonathan Hillerman.
Um, did you come in on the middle of this movie or something? For
you apparently missed all that trivial stuff about
murder-for-land-grabbing and incest, and...
C.
**
(who has to admit that probably wasn't as thrilling as watching
Jack's slashed nose for two hours...g!)
BTR1701
<f...@home.com> wrote:
> BTW, how the fuck could you NOT LOVE Chinatown?
Yeah, 'cause everyone has to love a movie just because you do.
Karyudo
>
>
>Karyudo wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I have. I just didn't like it much, so maybe the details are
>> hazy. Roman Polanski does in fact hit Jake Gittes' nose with something
>> (knife? gun?), and for at least part of the rest of the movie Jack has
>> a patch on it. Maybe it's not broken; it's sure as hell messed up.
>> Within a minute of the end of the movie, everyone's in Chinatown.
>> Maybe there's a short cut elsewhere, but basically the big reveal is
>> in Chinatown, a very, very short time from the end. Oh, and Higgins
>> (from Magnum P. I.) is in it. Yes, I know it's Jonathan Hillerman.
>
>Um, did you come in on the middle of this movie or something? For
>you apparently missed all that trivial stuff about
>murder-for-land-grabbing and incest, and...
I didn't miss it; I just didn't put it in my post.
Don't get me wrong: I didn't *hate* Chinatown or anything, I just
didn't *love* it. I enjoyed American Beauty more. And The Usual
Suspects quite a bit more.
I do plan to get around to seeing The Two Jakes one of these days. Or
should I not mess up Chinatown by doing that?
Karyudo
>BTW, how the fuck could you NOT
>LOVE Chinatown?
I dunno. Maybe I heard too much about how great it was before I saw it
for the first time, and it didn't quite live up to that sort of
expectation. It is on the AFI Top 100 list, though, so I do recognize
that it's not just some cult film that only die-hard fans would enjoy.
Like I've just posted elsewhere in this thread, I didn't *hate*
Chinatown -- but I didn't *love* it, either. Sorry!
deer...@mindspring.com
Karyudo wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong: I didn't *hate* Chinatown or anything, I just
> didn't *love* it. I enjoyed American Beauty more. And The Usual
> Suspects quite a bit more.
Oh. Okay. Why? :)
>
> I do plan to get around to seeing The Two Jakes one of these days. Or
> should I not mess up Chinatown by doing that?
Er...um...well, TTJ is a right mixed bag. It's got some nifty
dialogue and a cool look, but the story is hopelessly stop-start and
the pacing drags. Some good-to-uneven performances, but overall it
won't make you forget CHINATOWN. Indeed, it will make you think a
lot more kindly of it--g!
C.
**
Bill Anderson
Yes, John Harkness does. Well, he gets paid for his opinions, which is
a measure of value that makes his opinions worth more than yours and
mine, anyway.
>
> But the main point was that Lucas is merely average. Agreed.
>
Lucas's films have been significantly more successful than the films of
"merely average" directors.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Karyudo
<billand...@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> But the main point was that Lucas is merely average. Agreed.
>
>Lucas's films have been significantly more successful than the films of
>"merely average" directors.
"Being successful" doesn't automatically equal "great director".
That's a mistake GL himself seems to make.
Exactly two of Lucas' films were "significantly more successful" until
the late '90s: American Graffiti, and Star Wars. He didn't direct much
else before or after. Following that were two sequels that would have
been successful even if a rich old hack directed them. Oh, wait a sec:
a rich old hack *did* direct them!
Lucas is a pretty good editor, but he's been neither as wildly
prolific nor eclectic in what he films nor as consistent as someone
like Steven Spielberg, say.
Of course, to get the #7 spot on the AFI Top 100 list you can't be
terrible, but to say Lucas is a great director based on that alone is
a bit strong.
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
*plonk*
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"There's more than one way to die." -- Tony "Big Tuna" Accarda
Mark Steese
news:4154E22E...@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com:
[snip]
>> But the main point was that Lucas is merely average. Agreed.
>
> Lucas's films have been significantly more successful than the films
> of "merely average" directors.
Three of his movies have made a lot of money; one of his movies made
some money; and one was a flop. Not a very impressive track record.
Average directors might not make as much money per movie, but they make
more movies; Chris Columbus, who's as average as they come, has a
lifetime total gross higher than Lucas's. Lucas is one hell of a
franchise builder, but after seeing "Attack of the Clones," I think
calling him a merely average director is too kind. And as a writer,
he's always been bad.
--
Mark Steese
Unscramble and underscore to email
---
Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a
helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize
nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David
Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. -fametracker.com
/cluster*fuck
"Avoid normal situations." <byend.removethis...@eskimo.com>
wrote in message news:2rmcagF...@uni-berlin.de...
I'mmmmmmm, baaaaaaaackkkkkk.....
(laughs)
Better get yaself a bigger killfile, asshole...
Callipygian Nullifidian
news:1095623766.8vJoWhwQvY6D9iJ8JlPTxw@teranews...
: >Frankly, I am sick and tired of you so-called SW "fans" who are bad
mouthing
[snip]
: >What is upsetting to me is that there is a rabid minority of
so-called SW
: >fans who hate the "Greedo shoots first" concept.
You certainly don't lack nerve.....who the hell are you, to say who is
a "real fan" and who is not?
They prefer the original
: >low budget scene where Han shoots first. The reason why Han shoots
first in
: >the original is because of studio politics and the available
technology at
: >the time. Since the technology wasn't advanced enough to show
Greedo
: >shooting first, George Lucas had to resort to Han shooting first,
which was
: >a cheap work-around which left Han's character much to be desired.
I sincerely doubt that the technology level had much to do with the
decision.
: >I think that anyone who would prefer the old outdated scene is akin
to
: >someone who hates the brilliant character of Jar Jar Binks.
While I haven't actually bothered to see any of the newer Star Wars,
the descriptions that I've read of the Jar Jar Binks character have
pretty much agreed. You are the first person that I've run across to
refer to the character as "brilliant"...and your deliberately tying
together two unrelated issues is not clever, it only shows
deviousness.
: >I have also seen the original "Empire Strikes Back" and I must say
that ESB:
: >SE is far superior. I especially enjoyed the part where Luke is
screaming
: >for his life in SE instead of falling silently in the original.
The latter
: >makes Luke look like a reactionary, right-wing blowhard (strong,
silent
: >type) while the former makes him seem more realistic, not afraid to
express
: >his fear and emotions.
So, you believe that all strong, silent types are reactionary,
right-wing blowhards?
: >With the changes in the SE, I think they have made Star Wars more
: >politically correct...These idiots prefer the darker side of
: >Star Wars instead of its more positive and more politically correct
side
There is nothing positive about being politically correct. I come to
the conclusion that you're about as sharp as a wad of fresh chewing
gum.
: >Now to get a few things off of my chest. I'm sick and tired of you
racist
: >homophobes who don't like Jar Jar Binks. Star Wars is about
political
: >correctness, diversity and multiculturalism, and if you got a
problem with
: >that: sod off you stupid wanker! You deserve to be branded and
imprisoned
: >because you are a hate speech criminal. Jar Jar haters are no
better than
: >the "forces of darkness" that the visionary Lucas has spoken out
against.
: >
: >I have a question for you Jar Jar haters: if everyone hates Jar Jar
so much
: >then how come TPM is the highest grossing Star Wars movie of all
time? Can
: >millions of true Star Wars fans be wrong?
You appear to be equating a dislike of the Jar Jar character with
bigotry, why? Where did you ever get the notion that Star Wars is
about PC, diversity, and multiculturalism? The latter two, I can
understand, but PC, fuck no. Perhaps you should try doing a little
research, before you start making a fool of yourself.
You show great ignorance. Popularity is often used to support the
notion that a particular thing is the best, but the truth is, when
vast crowds of lower lifeforms swarm over something, it isn't because
they have better judgement or taste. What you've done in your post,
is to throw your lot in with the unwashed masses....
: >The truth is Jar Jar Binks and TPM make ANH and ESB look like shit,
OK? Jar
: >Jar is a much more interesting and more inclusive character than
that
: >misogynist
: >Han Solo. His fans are typical male chauvinist anti-choice pigs
who voted
: >for the right-wing racist cowboy George Bush. If you don't like
Jar Jar
: >then you are not a true Star Wars fan.
Are you by any chance a xian? Your arguments (such as they are)
remind me very much of many xians I've met. "You don't agree with me,
so you can't be a real ____" Grow up, son.
: >We TRUE Star Wars fans will enjoy and relish the changes that
George Lucas
: >has made to the upcoming Star Wars DVD set while you cynical "Han
shoots
: >first" fundamentalist extremists stilll wallow in your hatred. We
: >appreciate what Lucas has and still does, why can't you?
No trace of hatred from you, huh? You're pathetic.
Callipygian Nullifidian
: Don't get me wrong: I didn't *hate* Chinatown or anything, I just
: didn't *love* it. I enjoyed American Beauty more. And The Usual
: Suspects quite a bit more.
Hmmmm....I liked Chinatown quite a bit, but I'd have to say that I was
far more impressed by The Usual Suspects. Doesn't matter either way,
I consider both to be required viewing.
Callipygian Nullifidian
: Karyudo wrote:
: > Yes, of course in my opinion. That's my point: you don't have any
: > better handle on what's great than anyone else.
:
: Yes, John Harkness does. Well, he gets paid for his opinions, which
is
: a measure of value that makes his opinions worth more than yours and
: mine, anyway.
Do you actually believe that crap? Being paid for it in no way adds
weight. The fact is, most critics are a total waste of resources, and
should be put down.
: > But the main point was that Lucas is merely average. Agreed.
: >
:
: Lucas's films have been significantly more successful than the films
of
: "merely average" directors.
You kill me.....if George Lucas was merely average, you wouldn't be
arguing about it. But at the same time, being popular still doesn't
make any difference. You've listened to too many admen claiming that
their product is the best, just because it sells the most.
Callipygian Nullifidian
: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:12:46 -0400, Bill Anderson
: <billand...@DONTWANTSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
:
: >> But the main point was that Lucas is merely average. Agreed.
: >
: >Lucas's films have been significantly more successful than the
films of
: >"merely average" directors.
:
: "Being successful" doesn't automatically equal "great director".
: That's a mistake GL himself seems to make.
I'm glad you understand that, some others in the ng don't.
: Exactly two of Lucas' films were "significantly more successful"
until
: the late '90s: American Graffiti, and Star Wars. He didn't direct
much
: else before or after. Following that were two sequels that would
have
: been successful even if a rich old hack directed them. Oh, wait a
sec:
: a rich old hack *did* direct them!
:
: Lucas is a pretty good editor, but he's been neither as wildly
: prolific nor eclectic in what he films nor as consistent as someone
: like Steven Spielberg, say.
:
: Of course, to get the #7 spot on the AFI Top 100 list you can't be
: terrible, but to say Lucas is a great director based on that alone
is
: a bit strong.
Hmmmm...it isn't required that one be either prolific or eclectic, to
be great...for that matter, even consistency is not a requirement.
You are, of course, correct to state that being on a list doesn't
qualify, but I haven't yet seen anyone make that claim.
Jesse Mazer
Callipygian Nullifidian wrote:
>
>: >I think that anyone who would prefer the old outdated scene is akin
>to
>: >someone who hates the brilliant character of Jar Jar Binks.
>
>While I haven't actually bothered to see any of the newer Star Wars,
>the descriptions that I've read of the Jar Jar Binks character have
>pretty much agreed. You are the first person that I've run across to
>refer to the character as "brilliant"...and your deliberately tying
>together two unrelated issues is not clever, it only shows
>deviousness.
>
I'm pretty sure that this guy's whole rant is supposed to be satirical,
although he didn't do a very good job...calling Jar Jar not just good
but "brilliant", and using "politically correct" as a positive
adjective, and calling anyone who doesn't agree a "hate speech
criminal", is all way too over-the-top to be sincere.
Karyudo
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>I'm pretty sure that this guy's whole rant is supposed to be satirical,
>although he didn't do a very good job...calling Jar Jar not just good
>but "brilliant", and using "politically correct" as a positive
>adjective, and calling anyone who doesn't agree a "hate speech
>criminal", is all way too over-the-top to be sincere.
And yet still the masses are sucked in! I'd say that's pretty good
satire. Too much more subtle, and the OP woulda been tarred and
feathered.
It's sad that satire as an artform is now a rare and underappreciated
medium...
DonnieM1072
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:51:43 GMT, Jesse Mazer
> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm pretty sure that this guy's whole rant is supposed to be satirical,
> >although he didn't do a very good job...calling Jar Jar not just good
> >but "brilliant", and using "politically correct" as a positive
> >adjective, and calling anyone who doesn't agree a "hate speech
> >criminal", is all way too over-the-top to be sincere.
>
> And yet still the masses are sucked in!
Uh-oh, another 'vanguard of the proletariat' who's decided to speak for all
humanity again.
>
> I'd say that's pretty good satire.
I'd say you wouldn't know what good satire is if it hit you in the face.
>
>Too much more subtle, and the OP woulda been tarred and
> feathered.
Too little and it looks over-the-top ridiculous.
>
> It's sad that satire as an artform is now a rare and underappreciated
> medium...
Yes, isn't it.
Dgates
I know that the conventional wisdom is that we're suppposed to like
Chinatown much more than, say, The Usual Suspects. But I certainly
felt a lot less icky at the end of Usual Suspects!
I guess it depends what you want from a movie.
Karyudo
wrote:
>"Karyudo" <karyudo...@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
>news:qn2kl0t5ehkklqft5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:51:43 GMT, Jesse Mazer
>> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm pretty sure that this guy's whole rant is supposed to be satirical,
>> >although he didn't do a very good job...calling Jar Jar not just good
>> >but "brilliant", and using "politically correct" as a positive
>> >adjective, and calling anyone who doesn't agree a "hate speech
>> >criminal", is all way too over-the-top to be sincere.
>>
>> And yet still the masses are sucked in!
>
>Uh-oh, another 'vanguard of the proletariat' who's decided to speak for all
>humanity again.
If you don't want to be "the masses," then don't. But more people
posting to this thread have taken the OP's satire at face value than
have indicated otherwise -- ergo "the masses" have been sucked in. How
would you have me put that? "Several people who read this thread and
then typed a reply and then posted it to one of the five groups to
which this thread has been crossposted"? I prefer "the masses." Saves
on typing.
>> I'd say that's pretty good satire.
>
>I'd say you wouldn't know what good satire is if it hit you in the face.
I'd say you need some satirist (good or otherwise) to hit you in the
face.
>>Too much more subtle, and the OP woulda been tarred and
>> feathered.
>
>Too little and it looks over-the-top ridiculous.
Well, then, he got it about right, didn't he? Since most people
posting didn't think it was over-the-top ridiculous. Just subtle
enough to piss off the target market.
Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal"? Eating Irish babies -- sounds
pretty reasonable, huh? Not at all over-the-top ridiculous.
>> It's sad that satire as an artform is now a rare and underappreciated
>> medium...
>
>Yes, isn't it.
Sarcasm, on the other hand, is clearly alive and well.
That Guy
someone under the table (thus Greedo shoots first).
Its not PC for FBI agents to shoot people with rifles (thus the FBI guns
turn into walkies talkies in ET)
PC means "if it might make a person upset its bad"
Greedo shooting first was a horrible thing, worse than ewoks, worse than
gungans. Han Solo was a SCOUNDREL! A SMUGGLER! Shooting Greedo under the
table was completely in character and acceptable. But someone decided it set
a bad example. How I have no clue. I always equated Han shooting first as a
simple "kill or be killed" scenario.
I'm worried that if Lucas ever re-issued Temple Of Doom what he would do
with the cultists... Have them rip out peoples hair instead of hearts?
DonnieM1072
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:20:37 -0400, "DonnieM1072" <don...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Karyudo" <karyudo...@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in message
> >news:qn2kl0t5ehkklqft5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:51:43 GMT, Jesse Mazer
> >> <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm pretty sure that this guy's whole rant is supposed to be
satirical,
> >> >although he didn't do a very good job...calling Jar Jar not just good
> >> >but "brilliant", and using "politically correct" as a positive
> >> >adjective, and calling anyone who doesn't agree a "hate speech
> >> >criminal", is all way too over-the-top to be sincere.
> >>
> >> And yet still the masses are sucked in!
> >
> >Uh-oh, another 'vanguard of the proletariat' who's decided to speak for
all
> >humanity again.
>
> If you don't want to be "the masses," then don't. But more people
> posting to this thread have taken the OP's satire at face value than
> have indicated otherwise -- ergo "the masses" have been sucked in. How
They have? Or maybe some people are backtracking and are calling it
'satire' due to the reaction it got from "the masses".
Whatever...
>
> would you have me put that? "Several people who read this thread and
> then typed a reply and then posted it to one of the five groups to
> which this thread has been crossposted"? I prefer "the masses." Saves
> on typing.
>
> >> I'd say that's pretty good satire.
> >
> >I'd say you wouldn't know what good satire is if it hit you in the face.
>
> I'd say you need some satirist (good or otherwise) to hit you in the
> face.
I'd say you need to go back to satire school. Or put an emoticon after it
to inform "the masses" that it was satire.
>
> >>Too much more subtle, and the OP woulda been tarred and
> >> feathered.
> >
> >Too little and it looks over-the-top ridiculous.
>
> Well, then, he got it about right, didn't he? Since most people
> posting didn't think it was over-the-top ridiculous. Just subtle
> enough to piss off the target market.
Or poorly said as Jesse Mazer had mentioned eariler.
>
> Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal"? Eating Irish babies -- sounds
> pretty reasonable, huh? Not at all over-the-top ridiculous.
Never read it. And?
>
> >> It's sad that satire as an artform is now a rare and underappreciated
> >> medium...
> >
> >Yes, isn't it.
>
> Sarcasm, on the other hand, is clearly alive and well.
Yes it is. I happen to like it.
(laughs)
Karyudo
wrote:
>> [M]ore people
>> posting to this thread have taken the OP's satire at face value than
>> have indicated otherwise -- ergo "the masses" have been sucked in.
>
>They have? Or maybe some people are backtracking and are calling it
>'satire' due to the reaction it got from "the masses".
>
>Whatever...
"Whatever" is right.
I read the original post, and especially after the first couple of
paragraphs, it was clear it was satire. Like you say, the OP's praise
of Jar Jar and TPM and political correctness is just a little too
effusive. Unnaturally so. However, there were a half-dozen or more
posts immediately saying something to the effect of "moron" or "fag"
or some such. Those who took a bit longer to write refuted the
original post with well-known facts -- facts I'm sure the OP knows all
too well. Satire, satire, satire.
>I'd say you need to go back to satire school. Or put an emoticon after it
>to inform "the masses" that it was satire.
I'd say using emoticons pretty much by definition means it is *not*
satire.
>> Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal"? Eating Irish babies -- sounds
>> pretty reasonable, huh? Not at all over-the-top ridiculous.
>
>Never read it. And?
It's perhaps the best-known satirical piece of writing in the
(English-speaking) world. It was written by Jonathan Swift (the guy
who wrote "Gulliver's Travels") in 1729, and it puts forth the
proposal that Irish infant bastards be used for food (and perhaps
leather) for the rich to help fix the Irish economy. Pretty
over-the-top ridiculous, and satirical both.
Check it out for yourself at http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html.
>> Sarcasm, on the other hand, is clearly alive and well.
>
>Yes it is. I happen to like it.
>
>(laughs)
Me, too.
DonnieM1072
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:02:46 -0400, "DonnieM1072" <don...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> [M]ore people
> >> posting to this thread have taken the OP's satire at face value than
> >> have indicated otherwise -- ergo "the masses" have been sucked in.
> >
> >They have? Or maybe some people are backtracking and are calling it
> >'satire' due to the reaction it got from "the masses".
> >
> >Whatever...
>
> "Whatever" is right.
Your damm right, it's right. (laughs)
>
> I read the original post, and especially after the first couple of
> paragraphs, it was clear it was satire. Like you say, the OP's
> praise of Jar Jar and TPM and political correctness is just a
> little too effusive. Unnaturally so.
Oh I don't know about that. Nowadays some control-freaks enforce
political-correctness to such extremes that they aren't being satirical
about it at all. They truly *do* believe what they say, and they aren't
laughing about it.
In this day and age, nothing about political-correctness seems too
"effusive".
>
> However, there were a half-dozen or more
> posts immediately saying something to the effect of "moron"
> or "fag" or some such. Those who took a bit longer to write
> refuted the original post with well-known facts -- facts I'm
> sure the OP knows all too well. Satire, satire, satire.
That was a poor way of putting it. Maybe he's being too 'clever' for his
own good.
>
> >I'd say you need to go back to satire school. Or put an emoticon after
it
> >to inform "the masses" that it was satire.
>
> I'd say using emoticons pretty much by definition means it is *not*
> satire.
That's what you'd say. I wouldn't.
>
> >> Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal"? Eating Irish babies
> >> -- sounds pretty reasonable, huh? Not at all over-the-top ridiculous.
> >
> >Never read it. And?
>
> It's perhaps the best-known satirical piece of writing in the
> (English-speaking) world. It was written by Jonathan Swift (the guy
> who wrote "Gulliver's Travels") in 1729, and it puts forth the
> proposal that Irish infant bastards be used for food (and perhaps
> leather) for the rich to help fix the Irish economy. Pretty
> over-the-top ridiculous, and satirical both.
That's nice. I can see where that might be satirical. The OP post wasn't.
If you wannna say it was, fine, but enough people here thought otherwise.
The "masses" since you like that word.
If you want, I can call it a 'satirical flop'. How's that?
(more laughs)
>
> Check it out for yourself at http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html.
Oh I believe ya.
>
> >> Sarcasm, on the other hand, is clearly alive and well.
> >
> >Yes it is. I happen to like it.
> >
> >(laughs)
>
> Me, too.
>
Alright. We finally agree.
Rich Handley
>That's nice. I can see where that might be satirical. The OP post wasn't.
>If you wannna say it was, fine, but enough people here thought otherwise.
>The "masses" since you like that word.
What?? Of course it was satire. If the masses didn't realize it, then the
masses (as is often the case) are idiots. Tavington's post was a joke, not
to be taken seriously, and only a fool wouldn't have realized that. I
agree with Kayudo -- a lot of people here need to read Swift. Anyone who
took Tavington seriously... well, they're severely limited, to say the
least.
Jesse Mazer
Rich Handley wrote:
Yes, the original post was definitely satirical, but unlike Swift there
was nothing clever about it, all he did was take all the main criticisms
fanboys have made of Lucas' changes--like that Greedo shooting first was
P.C., that Luke's scream made his jump seem wimpier, that Jar Jar's
childish humor didn't fit--and pretend that these were the things he
loved most about Star Wars in an over-the-top way. His execution was
pretty unfunny too, although I guess humor is in the eye of the
beholder. But if your only defense of it was that it suckered in a lot
of people, I don't think that's a very good criterion for quality satire.
Karyudo
wrote:
>> I'd say using emoticons pretty much by definition means it is *not*
>> satire.
>
>That's what you'd say. I wouldn't.
Check this out:
Not an emoticon anywhere. For good reason: it's satire. Which doesn't
have any need whatsoever for emoticons.
DonnieM1072
"Rich Handley" <rhan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:933nl01hgrt3p50l3...@4ax.com...
Yeah well coming from you Rich, I'm not surprised. Anybody who *doesn't*
agree with you is "severely limited" to say the least.
DonnieM1072
Maybe so but in the OPs case, he needed it.
Satirical flop, anyone....?
DonnieM1072
> >the
> >> masses (as is often the case) are idiots. Tavington's post was a joke,
> >> not to be taken seriously, and only a fool wouldn't have realized that.
I
> >> agree with Kayudo -- a lot of people here need to read Swift. Anyone
who
> >> took Tavington seriously... well, they're severely limited, to say the
least.
> >Yeah well coming from you Rich, I'm not surprised. Anybody who *doesn't*
> >agree with you is "severely limited" to say the least.
>
me
I've been reading your responses to this thread and they've tended to be
*condescending* to say the least. You supposedly 'got it', most other
people (including myself) didn't. If that's what you're like in real life,
then maybe I don't wanna know you.
>
> -- I've always advocated dissenting opinions on this group and often say
> just that. This would be a very boring place if everyone agreed.
>
Well that's really rich, Rich. Maybe not everybody out there appreciates
'good' satire like you do. That is, if one wants to call it "good". But I
suppose like most everything else around here, that's in the eye of the
beholder.
Other than that, I'd probably agree with you on most everything else about
this thread.
Rich Handley
>I've been reading your responses to this thread and they've tended to be
>*condescending* to say the least. You supposedly 'got it', most other
>people (including myself) didn't. If that's what you're like in real life,
>then maybe I don't wanna know you.
Sorry to hear it. However, I have to wonder what responses of mine you
supposedly read, as I've hardly posted anything to this thread. I suspect
you have me confused with someone else. I just looked in my outbox, and
all I've said is that some people are gullible and that Tavington's post
was a funny satire. If that makes you not want to know me, I won't lose
sleep over it.
>> -- I've always advocated dissenting opinions on this group and often say
>> just that. This would be a very boring place if everyone agreed.
>Well that's really rich, Rich. Maybe not everybody out there appreciates
>'good' satire like you do. That is, if one wants to call it "good". But I
>suppose like most everything else around here, that's in the eye of the
>beholder.
Actually, I think a LOT of people got it. Only a few didn't seem to.
Personally, I thought it was obvious, but I guess not everyone did. In any
case, Tavington has posted several similar posts -- he's a well-known but
non-offensive troll, and I see nothing condescending about my pointing out
the humor in his post.
>Other than that, I'd probably agree with you on most everything else about
>this thread.
See, that's what makes me think you've got me confused with someone else,
as I've not even said anything else about this thread for you to agree or
disagree with. The gullibility of people in believing his post to be
sincere is the ONLY thing I've commented on in this entire thread.
Steve...@rightbehindyou.com
I propose:
:-|
be the emoticon for satire.
Steve Tilson
--
"We're not going to kill you. The moral thing is to let you die a natural
death. Alone. In a pile of your own filth."
- Frylock
Johnd Fstone
> I propose:
>
> :-|
>
> be the emoticon for satire.
>
> Steve Tilson
I propose marking satire with "This is NOT a joke! This is NOT a
joke! This is NOT a joke! This is NOT a joke! This is NOT a joke!
This is NOT a joke! This is NOT a joke! This is NOT a joke!"
--
The dinosaurs didn't become extinct. It's 1972, and Richard Nixon is
President of the United States. -- Dan Goodman
DonnieM1072
<Steve...@rightbehindyou.com> wrote in message
news:20041001100501.498$U...@newsreader.com...
> Karyudo <karyudo...@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:14:15 -0400, "DonnieM1072" <don...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> I'd say using emoticons pretty much by definition means it is *not*
> > >> satire.
> > >
> > >That's what you'd say. I wouldn't.
> >
> > Check this out:
> >
> > http://www.satiresearch.com/
> >
> > Not an emoticon anywhere. For good reason: it's satire. Which doesn't
> > have any need whatsoever for emoticons.
>
> I propose:
>
> :-|
That'll work.
>
> be the emoticon for satire.
>
Or get better satirists. Don't use rank amateurs.
DonnieM1072
> "DonnieM1072" <don...@yahoo.com> said:
> >I've been reading your responses to this thread and they've tended to be
> >*condescending* to say the least. You supposedly 'got it', most other
> >people (including myself) didn't. If that's what you're like in real
life,
> >then maybe I don't wanna know you.
>
> Sorry to hear it. However, I have to wonder what responses of mine you
> supposedly read, as I've hardly posted anything to this thread. I suspect
> you have me confused with someone else. I just looked in my outbox, and
> all I've said is that some people are gullible and that Tavington's post
> was a funny satire. If that makes you not want to know me, I won't lose
> sleep over it.
>
> >> -- I've always advocated dissenting opinions on this group and often
say
> >> just that. This would be a very boring place if everyone agreed.
> >Well that's really rich, Rich. Maybe not everybody out there appreciates
> >'good' satire like you do. That is, if one wants to call it "good". But
I
> >suppose like most everything else around here, that's in the eye of the
> >beholder.
>
> Actually, I think a LOT of people got it. Only a few didn't seem to.
> Personally, I thought it was obvious, but I guess not everyone did. In
any
It might have been obvious to me if I hadn't have gone to college with a lot
of people who sounded just like that. And they weren't being satirical at
all.
> case, Tavington has posted several similar posts -- he's a well-known but
> non-offensive troll, and I see nothing condescending about my pointing out
> the humor in his post.
No, what was condescending was your belittling other people who failed to
see the humor.
>
> >Other than that, I'd probably agree with you on most everything else
about
> >this thread.
>
> See, that's what makes me think you've got me confused with someone else,
> as I've not even said anything else about this thread for you to agree or
> disagree with. The gullibility of people in believing his post to be
> sincere is the ONLY thing I've commented on in this entire thread.
>
I agree to a point. A couple of people who responded negatively to it,
asked for it. But to make a blanket statement that all who didn't see the
'humor' are somehow "severely lacking", that's what I took issue with.
But hey, miscommunication happens all the time, right?
Have a nice day...